ExoMars 2016: on its way to Mars!

[RedKraken]

1 hour ago, Steel said:

The only issue being they'll all crash trying to get there

heh.. make em real small and wrap them in airbags. Send dozens.

They only have to operate for 2 or 3 minutes in a known direction.

The rest of the time they can be dormant or weather stations.

[kerbiloid]

Primary objective: complete. Interplanetary kinetic homing vehicle successfully hit a target on the Mars surface. Target is still getting identified.

Secondary objective: failed. The hit target is not the rover drone.

2 hours ago, RedKraken said:

heh.. make em real small and wrap them in airbags. Send dozens.

Yeah, a cluster.

 

[Scotius]

So, another Mars probe bit the dust? Ehh. So many years. So many missions. And we still can't achieve 100% success ratio.

[insert_name]

keep in mind, the success rate for mars is below 50%. so actually exomars 2016 increased the success rate if you count Schiaparelli and tog as separate missions

[YNM]

Maybe some mapping orbiter should catch it on the images... Maybe MRO could take them ?

Just an anecdote : only US probes has landed on Mars so far... ??

Edited October 20, 2016 by YNM

[tater]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

keep in mind, the success rate for mars is below 50%. so actually exomars 2016 increased the success rate if you count Schiaparelli and tog as separate missions

We're 8 out of 9 on soft landings. The stats are mostly screwed up by the early Russian missions (for the Russians, Mars really is the kite-eating tree for some reason).

31 minutes ago, YNM said:

Just an anecdote : only US probes has landed on Mars so far... ??

Yeah, the only successful ones. Beagle 2 landed, but the antenna was blocked so mission failure.

[Mitchz95]

Scott Manley on Twitter:

"It's possible there's now twice as many Schiaparelli Craters on Mars."

[Nibb31]

The Russians successfully landed Mars 3 in 1971, but it stopped transmitting after 20 seconds on the surface.

[DDE]

43 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

The Russians successfully landed Mars 3 in 1971, but it stopped transmitting after 20 seconds on the surface.

...with most evidence pointing to its electronics being fried by lightning before it even touched down.

[Darnok]

Not sure if no response counts as success or failure.

It may means it found life that ate the probe... or it found geological process that destroyed the probe...

[J.Random]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

...with most evidence pointing to its electronics being fried by lightning before it even touched down.

...because they decided to land into a middle of a dust storm. Just like this time.

[WeirdCulture]

5 hours ago, Scotius said:

So, another Mars probe bit the dust? Ehh. So many years. So many missions. And we still can't achieve 100% success ratio.

I have the feeling that ESA is dooing it the Kerbal way

" The thrusters were confirmed to have been briefly activated although it seems likely that they switched off sooner than expected, at an altitude that is still to be determined. " (from http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway )

Quickload! Quickload!

 

[worir4]

Sounds like aliens don't want us finding the......

 

Just joking, I think one little thing might have gone wrong. The landing system was immensely complex and taking into account its journey time, it would be impressive if nothing did fail. 

As some one else said, it only takes one of the thrusters to fail to cause the entire lander to flip out just like when you mess up your symmetrical staging in KSP

[Nibb31]

3 minutes ago, worir4 said:

As some one else said, it only takes one of the thrusters to fail to cause the entire lander to flip out just like when you mess up your symmetrical staging in KSP

I don't know. It seems to have 3 sets of 3 thrusters, which should provide a decent level of fault tolerance.

[ElWanderer]

The BBC are reporting that the parachute jettisoned earlier than expected (hinted at in the ESA page linked to above), as well as the thrusters firing for less time than intended. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37715202

PS. Mark Watney says "thanks for the new barbeque. Mmmmm, hot potatoes".

[kerbiloid]

Just 9 engines, not 42.

26 minutes ago, ElWanderer said:

parachute jettisoned earlier than expected (hinted at in the ESA page linked to above), as well as the thrusters firing for less time than intended

Premature ejection failure.

[Tullius]

Considering the post:

It looks like Schiaparelli (EDM) had some trouble knowing where it actually was inside the atmosphere.

Still, the amount of data ESA has already gathered about the failed landing is impressive. An considering they already asked NASA for pictures, I guess it won't take a long before we get some pictures of the remains.

[Darnok]

25 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Just 9 engines, not 42.

Premature ejection failure.

And simple break during falling maneuver not the one ITS is planning to do

How this probe measured distance from terrain? Or altitude?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Darnok

[monophonic]

20 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And simple break during falling maneuver not the one ITS is planning to do

How this probe measured distance from terrain? Or altitude?

I read somewhere it had a radar altimeter, but that was not the most technical of sources for sure.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, J.Random said:

...because they decided to land into a middle of a dust storm. Just like this time.

What, again? Are you kidding or did they really end up landing it in a major storm?

[Streetwind]

ESA just has such a hard time with landings. Beagle 2, Philae, now this...

[tater]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Just 9 engines, not 42.

Premature ejection failure.

Remember to tip your waitress, folks!

 

[J.Random]

38 minutes ago, DDE said:

What, again? Are you kidding or did they really end up landing it in a major storm?

Yup. Although I'm not sure it was a matter of choice, really. Mars-3 and ExoMars had similar profiles: lander piggybacks the orbiter and separates before the insertion burn, lander goes down straight from interplanetary transfer, orbiter does insertion burn and achieves orbit. I don't think their dV budget allowed for anything else.

Edited October 20, 2016 by J.Random

[Nibb31]

A "storm" on Mars is a light breeze on Earth. I doubt that the weather had anything to with it.

[Diche Bach]

Imagine how much worse it would be if there were 100 "colonists" on that thing.